Truck blind spots - this is genuinely scary

[supersport]

Came across this educational video, if you EVER go down the side of a truck,bus etc then watch. You will never do this again

TFL video

[muckymotor]

That does give a slightly false impression due to the cab not being straight with the trailer. Most good drivers would be constantly checking their mirrors and would see the cyclists arrive.

It does prove the point that both drivers and cyclists need to take great care when around each other though.

[SHutchinson]

That's more than a tiny bit disturbing!

[Squiggs]

muckymotor said:

That does give a slightly false impression due to the cab not being straight with the trailer. Most good drivers would be constantly checking their mirrors and would see the cyclists arrive.

The truck is positioned (and indicating) ready and waiting to make a left hand turn hence the cab is not be straight with the trailer - it is a real life situation.
Then imagine he's looking right waiting for a gap in the traffic or watching traffic lights - any or all of those cyclists could have arrived without him seeing them!

A very sobering video - the simple rule for cyclists must surely be it's not worth the risk of going up the inside and chancing that the driver spotted you.

[muckymotor]

I understand all that, just pointing out that it isn't as straight forward as it would first appear.

[Jonleeper]

What I don't understand is why people looking at this are worried? When you see a large articulated vehicle stopped at a junction ahead with the cab slightly turned, signalling left or not, the very last thing I would ever do is ride down the inside. Surely that is just common sense and life preservation, isn’t it? Large trucks have blind spots, cars have blind spots and cyclists have blind spots. We all rely on situational awareness to create a complete picture of what is around us. We all also have a responsibility to be aware of the hazards around us, large HGV’s being a major one. I am not condoning people who turn without warning and without checking their blind spots, including cyclists who do not do a “deadmans” before moving off, but I do not have a great deal of sympathy for anyone who deliberately places themselves in the blind spot of an HGV either.

Then you get occasions like this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-268696...

It is being reported as an accident black spot and the truck driver being in the wrong but looking at the photograph and the position of the truck and the tent it looks, to me, like a cyclist ran the red light and hit the truck in the side and went under it’s wheels. I do not see how that is the truck drivers fault but I am sure that it will be portrayed as such. As cyclists we are the venerable ones and need to make sure that we protect ourselves.

[Magic919]

Jonleeper said:

WAs cyclists we are the venerable ones and need to make sure that we protect ourselves.

Sadly, not that venerable.

[Uriel]

While common sense should tell cyclists to not venture into that sort of situation and there have been campaigns to highlight the issue such as this:



it's not helped by the fact that in reality, the situation is often like this:

[Squiggs]

Uriel said:

While common sense should tell cyclists to not venture into that sort of situation and there have been campaigns to highlight the issue such as this:



it's not helped by the fact that in reality, the situation is often like this:

And it would be funny if it wasn't so serious!
Trying to educate cyclists that it's dangerous (life threatening in fact!) to put themselves in a certain position on the road - and then openly inviting them to put themselves in exactly that position
What a crazy situation!

[Jonleeper]

Magic919 said:

Jonleeper said:

WAs cyclists we are the venerable ones and need to make sure that we protect ourselves.

Sadly, not that venerable.

Sorry, spooling chucker moment!

[will_]

Jonleeper said:

Then you get occasions like this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-268696...

It is being reported as an accident black spot and the truck driver being in the wrong but looking at the photograph and the position of the truck and the tent it looks, to me, like a cyclist ran the red light and hit the truck in the side and went under it’s wheels. I do not see how that is the truck drivers fault but I am sure that it will be portrayed as such. As cyclists we are the venerable ones and need to make sure that we protect ourselves.

I think that's a pretty gross assumption. Perhaps you shouldn't just rely on one picture in suggesting that the cyclist was to blame.

The first picture in this article shows the bike under the nearside front wheels of the truck:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2596335/Ma...

That would suggest that the truck and cyclist collided on the nearside (i.e. going in the same direction, heading south accross the junction). Any presumption as to who was at fault would obviously be pure speculation at this stage and is best left unsaid.

[will_]

Squiggs said:

And it would be funny if it wasn't so serious!
Trying to educate cyclists that it's dangerous (life threatening in fact!) to put themselves in a certain position on the road - and then openly inviting them to put themselves in exactly that position
What a crazy situation!

What would you suggest instead though? No cycle lanes? Lanes that just end?

The fact is, motorists want cyclists to be "out of the way" at the side of the road. That's why cycle lanes are provided there. However when said cycle lane meets a junction, what can be done to keep cyclists going straight on out of the way of vehicles turning left?

[Jonleeper]

will_ said:

Jonleeper said:

Then you get occasions like this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-268696...

It is being reported as an accident black spot and the truck driver being in the wrong but looking at the photograph and the position of the truck and the tent it looks, to me, like a cyclist ran the red light and hit the truck in the side and went under it’s wheels. I do not see how that is the truck drivers fault but I am sure that it will be portrayed as such. As cyclists we are the venerable ones and need to make sure that we protect ourselves.

I think that's a pretty gross assumption. Perhaps you shouldn't just rely on one picture in suggesting that the cyclist was to blame.

The first picture in this article shows the bike under the nearside front wheels of the truck:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2596335/Ma...

That would suggest that the truck and cyclist collided on the nearside (i.e. going in the same direction, heading south accross the junction). Any presumption as to who was at fault would obviously be pure speculation at this stage and is best left unsaid.

Nope, still looks like he went under from the offside and the bike went further than he/she did. Tent etc all on the offside and no evidence of anyhting other than the bike on the nearside. But I agree that it is all speculation at this stage and probalby not helpful to this thread.

[Funk]

It's very sad that a person has died but I can't help feeling that the 'noise' around lorry/cyclist alterations is disproportionate. The article states that last year 14 cyclists died on the roads in London. Given the number of journeys and cyclists, I think it's a remarkably low number all things considered.

Yet an article from a couple of years ago shows that over 12,000 people died that year in hospital of things that were wholly preventable. Whilst all deaths are tragic, where's the action about saving 12,000+ people a year? How many millions will be spent in London on trying to prevent 14 deaths, and could that money be more effective in preventing a greater number of deaths elsewhere?

Edited by Funk on Friday 4th April 12:34

[yellowjack]

Jonleeper said:

...Then you get occasions like this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-268696...

It is being reported as an accident black spot and the truck driver being in the wrong but looking at the photograph and the position of the truck and the tent it looks, to me, like a cyclist ran the red light and hit the truck in the side and went under it’s wheels. I do not see how that is the truck drivers fault but I am sure that it will be portrayed as such. As cyclists we are the venerable ones and need to make sure that we protect ourselves.

It is equally plausible to suggest that the cyclist was proceeding straight ahead, from right to left in the photo, in the same direction as the truck, and the truck turned, sending the cyclist initially under the front nearside wheels, and as it continued through it's arc, he popped out behind the front offside wheels, having been crushed.

There is absolutely no sense in speculating/guessing what happened in this case - that's the job of Police investigators, hence why roads are closed and forensic tents erected. It would be wrong to suggest blame exists on either party at this point. Personally, I despair at the lack of follow-up given to these stories in the media. What might be useful in avoiding future fatalities and injuries would be to publish the findings from the investigations in full, with the same prominence as the initial "Yet another London cyclist dead" headlines.

Putting REAL images of the results of REAL collisions into a 'Public Information' type film might actually be quite sobering, both for drivers of HGVs and buses who could be made to watch it as part of their mandatory training, and also for cyclists, so that they could see first-hand the results of risky road positioning, regardless of who is right or wrong. I'm not suggesting that gory images of the deceased should be front and centre, but putting some strong images out there to make people actually think for themselves wouldn't be much of a stretch from the images of disease that are splattered all over cigarette packets, and distasteful as some might find it, it might actually work, and therefore prevent more of these needless, wasteful collisions.

[will_]

Funk said:

It's very sad that a person has died but I can't help feeling that the 'noise' around lorry/cyclist alterations is disproportionate. The article states that last year 14 cyclists died on the roads in London. Given the number of journeys and cyclists, I think it's a remarkably low number all things considered.

Yet an article from a couple of years ago shows that over 12,000 people died that year in hospital of things that were wholly preventable. Whilst all deaths are tragic, where's the action about saving 12,000+ people a year? How many millions will be spent in London on trying to prevent 14 deaths, and could that money be more effective in preventing a greater number of deaths elsewhere?

Edited by Funk on Friday 4th April 12:34

Whilst you make a fair point, I think that's always an argument in favour of doing nothing. There will almost always be something that the funds can be spent on which might "do more good".

I think it is the disproportion that is shocking. Compared to their volume on the road, HGVs are involved in cycling fatalities ten times greater then they "should" be. If you can "deal" with the particular threat that trucks pose, you'd cut the number killed by 50% or more (and reduce all the associated costs of dealing with a road fatality, plus make cycling "appear" less dangerous, thereby increasing participation and all the benefits that brings).

[will_]

Jonleeper said:

will_ said:

Jonleeper said:

Then you get occasions like this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-268696...

It is being reported as an accident black spot and the truck driver being in the wrong but looking at the photograph and the position of the truck and the tent it looks, to me, like a cyclist ran the red light and hit the truck in the side and went under it’s wheels. I do not see how that is the truck drivers fault but I am sure that it will be portrayed as such. As cyclists we are the venerable ones and need to make sure that we protect ourselves.

I think that's a pretty gross assumption. Perhaps you shouldn't just rely on one picture in suggesting that the cyclist was to blame.

The first picture in this article shows the bike under the nearside front wheels of the truck:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2596335/Ma...

That would suggest that the truck and cyclist collided on the nearside (i.e. going in the same direction, heading south accross the junction). Any presumption as to who was at fault would obviously be pure speculation at this stage and is best left unsaid.

Nope, still looks like he went under from the offside and the bike went further than he/she did. Tent etc all on the offside and no evidence of anyhting other than the bike on the nearside. But I agree that it is all speculation at this stage and probalby not helpful to this thread.

I think that is highly unlikely. Almost every incident where the bike is pictured actually under the wheels is due to a "left turn" collision.

I cannot see how that truck can crush the bike as it has done when the bike is, in effect, coming from behind and to the side of it as you suggest. That bike has clearly been run over. By which set of wheels in your scenario, given that it is sited just behind the front nearside?

To add - the lorry driver has now been arrested which indicates (but clearly is not conclusive) that the cyclists was unlikely to have jumped a red light.

Edited by will_ on Friday 4th April 12:59

[will_]

yellowjack said:

Personally, I despair at the lack of follow-up given to these stories in the media. What might be useful in avoiding future fatalities and injuries would be to publish the findings from the investigations in full, with the same prominence as the initial "Yet another London cyclist dead" headlines.

I tend to agree - it is rare for lessons to be learned from these accidents because the reasons behind them are usually unreported in the media.

I would suggest that this report helps in identifying the causes:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/ped...

[yellowjack]

will_ said:

I tend to agree - it is rare for lessons to be learned from these accidents because the reasons behind them are usually unreported in the media.

I would suggest that this report helps in identifying the causes:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/ped...

Thanks for the link, 'will_'. I'll have a read of (some) of that later. But even a quick look suggests it's a bit "dry" and in-depth for most ordinary folk, and as such won't reach a wide audience. But even a brief glance through it reveals that the most likely scenario for a cycling fatality is...

A white male rider, between 30 and 59 years old, carrying a rucksack, dies after suffering head injuries inflicted by a left turning 'general haulage and distribution' lorry greater than 7.5t MGW, travelling at less than 15mph, and driven by a slightly younger white man.

...so don't be 'white' and don't ride through your 'middle age', don't carry a rucksack, and if you really can't avoid riding, then make sure you stay away from HGVs at junctions?


Scary thought. "During the period January 2001 to December 2006 a total of 108 pedal cyclists were killed in London."

[Shivit]

Under no circumstances will I ever pass a truck in traffic. I learned my lesson a while back. It's not worth the minuscule time saving.